My job involves three roles: PR, communications and day to day operations.

When I drawing up a project and next action list should I divide my projects and actions by role or should I keep all the next actions on one list?

Secondly, David describes defining actions by context e.g @computer. I spend almost all day at my computer so how I can break up my next actions? My @computer list is over a page long.

I've just started trying to implement GTD.

Thanks

In general, your roles are a high-level checklist that drives projects and next actions ("Mom & Dad- have I called recently? No. Add to @Calls). You should look at it as frequently as you need or want to, but at least once a month. There is software that links roles, aka areas of focus, to projects and next actions, but the use of such software is not necessary. You want your next action lists to be clear and compelling reminders of next physical steps you can take to move forward, and using your lists will help you settle on a format that makes sense to you.

Standard GTD practice is to list next actions by context. Many people spend much of their time near a computer (I do too). However, there are subtle variations for most of us. We have meetings with other people, scheduled or unscheduled, and an Agendas list may be helpful. We make phone calls, and an @Phone or @Calls list may be helpful. Some people find an @Online list helpful. Some people are completely comfortable with a long @Computer list, and that's fine too. It's up to you to find a format that works well for you. Notice the rhythms of your work. Are there next actions that naturally batch together? Try a few categories and see if they are helpful. I only have five major "place" contexts: anywhere, computer, home, home office, work. I also have the recommended "status" lists: someday/maybe and waiting for. I also have an agenda list. In one of David Allan's books, he quotes a proverb that I've remembered: "The work will teach you how to do it." In other words, your experience will guide you in finding an effective system if you are mindful of its lessons.

Comment

Think about what you think would work better for you, or try out different things. You might want to keep all your computer actions on one list. You might want to divide them up by roles, if you like doing several actions for one role one after another rather than jumping around. Or, you might want to divide them up in some other way, such as type of action: you might prefer to do several emails one after another, even if they're for different roles; or you might prefer to do several quick actions one after another sometimes and at other times work on things that take longer, so you could divide them up by length of time they take. Maybe you prefer to do some types of work in the morning and different types in the afternoon. You could divide them up by how difficult they are or whether they're more pensive or more of an interaction with the computer.

I like to keep my actions sorted by priority and by the amount of time-and-effort they'll take. That way I can do the higher-priority actions first without having to read the whole list every time; I can get the more difficult things done first when I have a normal level of energy; and I can choose easy things when tired without wearing myself out by even contemplating the more difficult ones.

Comment

I am a product of the FranklinCovey days of defining your 5 to 7 roles, goals, and so forth. I do not divide projects and actions by role. The key, at least for me, is the contexts that I use since that is how I sort getting work done. The defining action (context) can be as varied as you want them to be so that they are helpful. For example, I have @Computer (work that can be done on a computer, but does not need the internet), @Cloud (work that needs to be done on a computer with internet access). In some cases, when my computer list is rather long, I even use the @HComputer (for home computer work) and @WComputer (for work that has to be done on my work computer that cannot be done at home). Since most of the work that I do is compartmentalize to specific locations (I work in the insurance world, I am a minister, and I do coaching). I use context descriptions to aid in separation of projects based on roles without keeping separate project list. For example, @Work if my primary job, @Church relates to my minstery role, and my coaching work comes out of the home and occurs at different locations so I use the best contexts to guide that. I also have the major contexts like @Call, @Errand, @Home, and so forth that David recommends.

My job involves three roles: PR, communications and day to day operations.

When I drawing up a project and next action list should I divide my projects and actions by role or should I keep all the next actions on one list?

Secondly, David describes defining actions by context e.g @computer. I spend almost all day at my computer so how I can break up my next actions? My @computer list is over a page long.

I've just started trying to implement GTD.

Thanks

I have used OmniFocus to Get things done for more than 1 year.
I have 7-8 roles implemented by Folder in Omnifocus.
In each folder, I put some projects. When I review per week, I change some project to postponed according to my free time. I'm an IT programmer with internet all day. I divide such context: think/write/ponder(brain-comsuming), browse/read(don't think much), @home, @office, @outside->supermarket/bank/surburb..., wait for, furture.
It's suit for me very well.

Is the general consensus is to use one GTD system for my personal and work projects/ tasks?

I'm also finding my projects pages are far longer than I would have thought, did this happen to anyone else?

I am currently using a hacked Moleskine notebook.

I am using OmniFocus. Although there are a lot of projects in it, some are finished. I can't see them usually. You can focus due to & context items ereryday despite those projects, and review all underway projects only at weekend.